Pirate Party appeals German ban on anonymous SIM card activation

Says it's covered under European Court of Human Rights' right to private life.

A February order by a German Federal Constitutional Court determined that it is legal in Germany for telecommunications companies to demand formal identification from customers setting up prepaid SIM cards, but a regional Pirate Party politician appealed that ruling earlier this week.

Patrick Breyer, a member of northern Germany's Schleswig-Holstein regional parliament, and his brother Jonas Breyer, a lawyer, appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The appeal says that anonymous communication is protected under the European Convention on Human Rights' right to private life.

Denmark and France have outlawed anonymously purchased prepaid cards, but the Breyer brothers asserted that Germany's similar law is pointless because identification can be falsified, or people can bring prepaid phones in from other countries.

While German authorities claim the law prevents illegal activities, members of Germany's digital privacy-conscious Pirate Party disagree. "Germany's Breyer said in a statement that anonymous phone calls were important for a range of legitimate activities, from protecting journalistic sources to confidential business dealings," Reuters reported.

Freedom of private communication has been a hot-button issue lately, with an appeals court sayingearlier this week that police could track a drug dealer's phone without a warrant by pinging the phone's GPS chip. And an app called "Burner" was released the week before, allowing users to create temporary numbers so the recipient of the call can't track the caller back.

Well, we have a lot of privacy protections regarding ordinary businesses. With regards to state authorities, there's a lot less.

And in recent years there has been a strong tendency to hollow out both as much as possible. There was recent uproar because some law passed hastily during the soccer world championship would have basically allowed some authorities to sell citizen's addresses (we have a different registration system than the US, authorities have your address). Then, just some days ago, it was ruled by our highest ordinary court (one step below the Federal Constitutional Court) that names and addresses have to be handed out by ISPs in basically any case where someone is accused of copyright infringement.The legal possibilities of state authorities also have expanded quite a bit in recent years. And whenever the law gets ignored it is basically without consequences.

While we have a load of regulation in the area of privacy, this unfortunately does not mean that we really have privacy or more privacy than in the US (or elsewhere).

Well, we have a lot of privacy protections regarding ordinary businesses. With regards to state authorities, there's a lot less.

And in recent years there has been a strong tendency to hollow out both as much as possible. There was recent uproar because some law passed hastily during the soccer world championship would have basically allowed some authorities to sell citizen's addresses (we have a different registration system than the US, authorities have your address). Then, just some days ago, it was ruled by our highest ordinary court (one step below the Federal Constitutional Court) that names and addresses have to be handed out by ISPs in basically any case where someone is accused of copyright infringement.The legal possibilities of state authorities also have expanded quite a bit in recent years. And whenever the law gets ignored it is basically without consequences.

While we have a load of regulation in the area of privacy, this unfortunately does not mean that we really have privacy or more privacy than in the US (or elsewhere).

unfortunately true on that part, Private/commercial companies in Germany have a lot of regulations regarding consumer privacy (if you're in a branch/franchise office of your cellular carrier, the guy behind the counter has to send you a text-msg to your phone FIRST, which contains a one-time use code that you have to read back to the store-clerk behind that counter, to validate that YOU ARE the "owner" of the account, and until then, the POS system wont let the clerk see your account info, until the right code from that text is entered) - but Legal Enforcement powers/State authorities have a ton of ways to bypass and access your data and track you all the same way. There were incidents made public by various hacker groups how the cops did a ton of movement profiling that wasn't legal all the way.

Of course all in the name of "war on terrorism" - wikileaks had a bunch of 'cable leaks' about how the U.S. was putting some diplomatic pressure on Germany to "heighten the tracking/snooping" abilities to have a better "war on terrorism" - and then there was the "governmental Trojan horse" that was - lucky for the Germans, crappy designed.

Thanks for trying to save us from evil criminals, Germany, but it's the evil corporations I'm worried about.

I really do not think your average techno-savvy crook is gonna have much difficulty circumventing this flimsy law. On the otherhand it's an annoyance for honest citizens that wish to remain incognito. It's a fallacy that only the guilty have something to hide. Personal privacy is something that more businesses are ignoring; our personal data and preferences are bought and sold as commodities.

When having to deal with businesses I don't trust with my private information (eg. Facebook), a disposable anonymous phone number is useful. Phone verification for "free" online services is only likely to become more common. Something like the Burner app is starting to look very attractive indeed.

I hope they realize that if they lose it will set a precedent in all countries in the EU in this matter.

You betcha. In the perpetual struggle between civil rights and governments it's the little guy who always loses. Every inch of civil rights has been won with blood, hardly ever with lawsuits. The thirst for absolute control from governments is insatiable.

It all comes down to this question: Who's got more time, resources and lawyers than governments? No one, that's who.

I hope they realize that if they lose it will set a precedent in all countries in the EU in this matter.

You betcha. In the perpetual struggle between civil rights and governments it's the little guy who always loses. Every inch of civil rights has been won with blood, hardly ever with lawsuits. The thirst for absolute control from governments is insatiable.

It all comes down to this question: Who's got more time, resources and lawyers than governments? No one, that's who.

Uh..what? You have a strange logic there, the right to privacy is in the EU constitution and nobody had to shed blood for that.

Governments lose regularly in the EU court as they do in the US court so, yeah....I fail to see your point.

This seems quite a stretch to me; Germany has *extensive* privacy protections, esp. wrt telecommunications, so it's hard for me to believe that the EU somehow provides greater protection.

Just as a quick note, this has nothing to do with the EU. The European Court of Human Right is part of the Council of Europe. To quote Wikipedia (what else... ):

" It [Council of Europe] was founded in 1949, has 47 member states with some 800 million citizens, and is an entirely separate body[1] from the European Union (EU), which has only 27 member states. Unlike the EU, the Council of Europe cannot make binding laws. The two do however share certain symbols such as the flag and the anthem. The Council of Europe has nothing to do with either the Council of the European Union or the European Council,[1] which are both EU bodies.The best known bodies of the Council of Europe are the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the European Convention on Human Rights, [...]"

Privacy should be of paramount interest as the world continues to embrace digital interaction and communication, yet it seems the majority of people are so shortsighted, naive or simply otherwise ignorant that it is just not a concern for them.

Privacy should be of paramount interest as the world continues to embrace digital interaction and communication, yet it seems the majority of people are so shortsighted, naive or simply otherwise ignorant that it is just not a concern for them.

Right to privacy does not equate to right to anonimity, though. This case is about anonimity and that is not guaranteed by law anywhere in the EU, AFAIK.

You betcha. In the perpetual struggle between civil rights and governments it's the little guy who always loses. Every inch of civil rights has been won with blood, hardly ever with lawsuits. The thirst for absolute control from governments is insatiable.

It all comes down to this question: Who's got more time, resources and lawyers than governments? No one, that's who.

???You are insane. The history of civil rights in the US in the 20th century is mostly about winning these rights through lawsuits.

For once, a politician fighting for the citizen's freedom! Oh, it's a Pirate party guy? No wonder... he is not a real politician, that's why he won't get re-elected...

Meanwhile, real criminals (no, not your local drug dealer... this one can barely be qualified as a delinquent nowadays -- I am talking about your boss' banker) know how to use burner phones, VPNs, Tor and Sip to ensure that if a court is actually interested in what they are doing (which means, a politician hasn't done the job he is paid for) no one in law enforcement will have the slightest idea where to start figuring out what they are doing.

For once, a politician fighting for the citizen's freedom! Oh, it's a Pirate party guy? No wonder... he is not a real politician, that's why he won't get re-elected...

Meanwhile, real criminals (no, not your local drug dealer... this one can barely be qualified as a delinquent nowadays -- I am talking about your boss' banker) know how to use burner phones, VPNs, Tor and Sip to ensure that if a court is actually interested in what they are doing (which means, a politician hasn't done the job he is paid for) no one in law enforcement will have the slightest idea where to start figuring out what they are doing.

/IDontWantToLiveOnThisPlanetAnymore

Unfortunately, true. I would not be surprised in the damned slightest if regular politicians know about Tor, VPN's, etc. and use them to prevent people from tracking what they are doing online.

Here in SA a law came into effect a couple of years ago called, yes our officials aren't very imaginative, Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act (RICA). It sounds fairly similar, we now cannot activate even a "Pay as you go"/Prepaid (our version of disposable numbers, costing <$1 each) SIM without providing both our ID Numbers and proof of residence.

Thanks for trying to save us from evil criminals, Germany, but it's the evil corporations I'm worried about.

I really do not think your average techno-savvy crook is gonna have much difficulty circumventing this flimsy law. On the otherhand it's an annoyance for honest citizens that wish to remain incognito. It's a fallacy that only the guilty have something to hide. Personal privacy is something that more businesses are ignoring; our personal data and preferences are bought and sold as commodities.

When having to deal with businesses I don't trust with my private information (eg. Facebook), a disposable anonymous phone number is useful. Phone verification for "free" online services is only likely to become more common. Something like the Burner app is starting to look very attractive indeed.

Thanks for trying to save us from evil criminals, Germany, but it's the evil corporations I'm worried about.

I really do not think your average techno-savvy crook is gonna have much difficulty circumventing this flimsy law. On the otherhand it's an annoyance for honest citizens that wish to remain incognito. It's a fallacy that only the guilty have something to hide. Personal privacy is something that more businesses are ignoring; our personal data and preferences are bought and sold as commodities.

When having to deal with businesses I don't trust with my private information (eg. Facebook), a disposable anonymous phone number is useful. Phone verification for "free" online services is only likely to become more common. Something like the Burner app is starting to look very attractive indeed.

I'm sorry but if you are so concerned about privacy wtf are you doing on Facebook to begin with?

Privacy should be of paramount interest as the world continues to embrace digital interaction and communication, yet it seems the majority of people are so shortsighted, naive or simply otherwise ignorant that it is just not a concern for them.

Right to privacy does not equate to right to anonimity, though. This case is about anonimity and that is not guaranteed by law anywhere in the EU, AFAIK.

I see your argument and raise you "I don't want you to know who I am." That's a matter of privacy. Just as it's my right to not want you knowing I like fuzzy handcuffs, it's my right to refuse to give you identifying information. Anonymity is very much a privacy issue (as well as a free speech issue, as anonymity is absolutely essential to alleviate the risk of reprisal for unpopular, or politically inconvenient, speech).

It's easy enough to buy a prepaid phone together with its number from someone who has activated it, no questions asked. These things are so cheap now that people register them as a backup to their main phone for when the battery is down or if they want to go to a part of town where their expensive phone attracts the wrong kind of interest, and then give them away to a friend or relative when they lose theirs . Blowed if I can remember everyone I've ever given a phone to.